Green Umbrella, aren't you the papist I'm debating over at another forum?

I am at another forum. But you do credit things to me I have not stated. Why would you do this?

Where did I do that?

Quote

Papist

Papist is a (usually disparaging) term or an anti-Catholic slur, referring to the Roman Catholic Church, its teachings, practices, or adherents. The term was coined during the English Reformation to denote a person whose loyalties were to the Pope, rather than to the Church of England. Over time, however, the term came to mean one who supported Papal authority over all Christians.

This does not describe me at present. It may in the future, or it might not. I am an enquirer. I am researching and asking questions. I have formed no conclusions. But I do say the Council of Florence from what I know right now looks ecumenical.

But that leaves many questions. Can ¨the people¨ reject an ecumenical council? Did the Greeks demand the council not to be considered ecumenical unless ratified by local synods. Is that even necessary? Does that matter? What makes a council legit exactly and what does not?

I do not know. I have no conclusions yet. The entire thing is quite complex it seems. It will take some time to for my conclusion. So I am not a Papist.

But I do say the Council of Florence from what I know right now looks ecumenical.

A council, coerced to its conclusion and rejected by the Church (the faithful) is not ecumenical.

Watching Cryillic debate the people on the other forum is like watching architects arguing the building codes to a skyscraper with me being the cement mixer. I have no idea what they are talking about.

What is difficult to understand about a council being rejected by the people? It's happened plenty of times. Why else do you think we're still not in union with one another? If it were as simple as declaring this or that an ecumenical council that MUST be held to, then we wouldn't see multiple attempts at reunion councils fall flat. The people know their faith, and they wouldn't accept betrayal at Florence from bishops who had been pressured to sign on to something that does not reflect their faith. There is no such thing as "such and such a bishop signed off on it, therefore it's X, Y, Z", the way the Romans have decided applies to their Pope (yet another thing we don't listen to from them). Bishops can be wrong, just like councils that one particular church declares to be preserving the true faith can be doing something else instead.

What is difficult to understand about a council being rejected by the people? It's happened plenty of times. Why else do you think we're still not in union with one another? If it were as simple as declaring this or that an ecumenical council that MUST be held to, then we wouldn't see multiple attempts at reunion councils fall flat. The people know their faith, and they wouldn't accept betrayal at Florence from bishops who had been pressured to sign on to something that does not reflect their faith. There is no such thing as "such and such a bishop signed off on it, therefore it's X, Y, Z", the way the Romans have decided applies to their Pope (yet another thing we don't listen to from them). Bishops can be wrong, just like councils that one particular church declares to be preserving the true faith can be doing something else instead.

But you are assuming knowledge I do not have.

e.g. ¨What is difficult to understand about a council being rejected by the people? It's happened plenty of times.¨

It has? I do not know that.

e.g. ¨Bishops can be wrong...¨

They can? I do not know that.

I need to research this and it seems quite complex so it will take some time. Allow me to have it please.

What is difficult to understand about a council being rejected by the people? It's happened plenty of times. Why else do you think we're still not in union with one another? If it were as simple as declaring this or that an ecumenical council that MUST be held to, then we wouldn't see multiple attempts at reunion councils fall flat. The people know their faith, and they wouldn't accept betrayal at Florence from bishops who had been pressured to sign on to something that does not reflect their faith. There is no such thing as "such and such a bishop signed off on it, therefore it's X, Y, Z", the way the Romans have decided applies to their Pope (yet another thing we don't listen to from them). Bishops can be wrong, just like councils that one particular church declares to be preserving the true faith can be doing something else instead.

But you are assuming knowledge I do not have.

e.g. ¨What is difficult to understand about a council being rejected by the people? It's happened plenty of times.¨

It has? I do not know that.

e.g. ¨Bishops can be wrong...¨

They can? I do not know that.

I need to research this and it seems quite complex so it will take some time. Allow me to have it please.

The council in 1270 was similarly rejected before Florence. Repeating the same error does not validate it.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Yes, Green Umbrella, the people have rejected councils which did not reflect the Orthodox faith, and bishops and priests who have been guilty of the same tampering have been deposed. The despised Arius was formerly a presbyter at Alexandria. Nestorius was at one time Patriarch of Constantinople, and similarly the monothelite heretic Honorius was once Pope of Rome. They were all heretical and wrong and as wrong can be.

What is difficult to understand about a council being rejected by the people? It's happened plenty of times. Why else do you think we're still not in union with one another? If it were as simple as declaring this or that an ecumenical council that MUST be held to, then we wouldn't see multiple attempts at reunion councils fall flat. The people know their faith, and they wouldn't accept betrayal at Florence from bishops who had been pressured to sign on to something that does not reflect their faith. There is no such thing as "such and such a bishop signed off on it, therefore it's X, Y, Z", the way the Romans have decided applies to their Pope (yet another thing we don't listen to from them). Bishops can be wrong, just like councils that one particular church declares to be preserving the true faith can be doing something else instead.

But you are assuming knowledge I do not have.

e.g. ¨What is difficult to understand about a council being rejected by the people? It's happened plenty of times.¨

It has? I do not know that.

e.g. ¨Bishops can be wrong...¨

They can? I do not know that.

I need to research this and it seems quite complex so it will take some time. Allow me to have it please.

The council in 1270 was similarly rejected before Florence. Repeating the same error does not validate it.

Do you have a link with this information? The only thing I can find about a council in 1270 says...

Quote

¨In the Council of 1270, presided over by Bertrand de Malferrat, Archbishop of Arles, the usurpers of ecclesiastical property were severely threatened; unclaimed legacies were allotted to pious uses; the bishops were urged to mutual support; the individual churches were taxed for the support of the papal legate; and ecclesiastics were forbidden to convoke the civil courts against their bishops. Christmas carols were banned.¨

What is difficult to understand about a council being rejected by the people? It's happened plenty of times. Why else do you think we're still not in union with one another? If it were as simple as declaring this or that an ecumenical council that MUST be held to, then we wouldn't see multiple attempts at reunion councils fall flat. The people know their faith, and they wouldn't accept betrayal at Florence from bishops who had been pressured to sign on to something that does not reflect their faith. There is no such thing as "such and such a bishop signed off on it, therefore it's X, Y, Z", the way the Romans have decided applies to their Pope (yet another thing we don't listen to from them). Bishops can be wrong, just like councils that one particular church declares to be preserving the true faith can be doing something else instead.

The whole Mark of Ephesus ideal vs. the oft repeated teaching to be obedient to your priest/bishop even when they are wrong (because they're Christ on earth, and its right to follow them even when they're wrong), another one of Orthodoxy's grand stands of cognitive dissonance. Its no wonder anyone that tries to become Orthodox and isn't content with "Its all a mysterion! Don't think about anything!" ends up schizo.

What is difficult to understand about a council being rejected by the people? It's happened plenty of times. Why else do you think we're still not in union with one another? If it were as simple as declaring this or that an ecumenical council that MUST be held to, then we wouldn't see multiple attempts at reunion councils fall flat. The people know their faith, and they wouldn't accept betrayal at Florence from bishops who had been pressured to sign on to something that does not reflect their faith. There is no such thing as "such and such a bishop signed off on it, therefore it's X, Y, Z", the way the Romans have decided applies to their Pope (yet another thing we don't listen to from them). Bishops can be wrong, just like councils that one particular church declares to be preserving the true faith can be doing something else instead.

The whole Mark of Ephesus ideal vs. the oft repeated teaching to be obedient to your priest/bishop even when they are wrong (because they're Christ on earth, and its right to follow them even when they're wrong), another one of Orthodoxy's grand stands of cognitive dissonance. Its no wonder anyone that tries to become Orthodox and isn't content with "Its all a mysterion! Don't think about anything!" ends up schizo.

No one has ever told me that my priest or my bishop is "Christ on earth." I wonder if I should ask Father whether he is?

But I do say the Council of Florence from what I know right now looks ecumenical.

A council, coerced to its conclusion and rejected by the Church (the faithful) is not ecumenical.

Watching Cryillic debate the people on the other forum is like watching architects arguing the building codes to a skyscraper with me being the cement mixer. I have no idea what they are talking about.

I do not know...yet.

Don't worry, you won't have to see it anymore, the mods banned me. Real debate can't take place over there.

[...]the oft repeated teaching to be obedient to your priest/bishop even when they are wrong (because they're Christ on earth, and its right to follow them even when they're wrong)

If that teaching is so oft-repeated, how come I've never heard it? The bishop is Christ on earth? Nope, we don't have any thoughts of our bishops (any of them) being the "Vicar of Christ". That's an RC thing, not Orthodox.

Originally Posted by Cyrillic View PostI disagree. I don't think the Council of Florence was ecumenical. I do not see how that can be seriously disputed.

Quote

Originally Posted by Green_UmbrellaPlease correct me if I am wrong because I am very much a layman.

The Emporer himself and every representative from the east agreed and signed on the dotted line except one, Mark of Ephesus. If that is not ecumenical what is ecumenical? I do not think ecumenical could exist.

Your side rolled over. Unless you have some new information and that is very possible, that is the way I see it.

And from that point a debate opened. I was learning a lot. I do not see anything to be sad about.

But I do say the Council of Florence from what I know right now looks ecumenical.

A council, coerced to its conclusion and rejected by the Church (the faithful) is not ecumenical.

Watching Cryillic debate the people on the other forum is like watching architects arguing the building codes to a skyscraper with me being the cement mixer. I have no idea what they are talking about.

I do not know...yet.

Don't worry, you won't have to see it anymore, the mods banned me. Real debate can't take place over there.

[...]the oft repeated teaching to be obedient to your priest/bishop even when they are wrong (because they're Christ on earth, and its right to follow them even when they're wrong)

If that teaching is so oft-repeated, how come I've never heard it? The bishop is Christ on earth? Nope, we don't have any thoughts of our bishops (any of them) being the "Vicar of Christ". That's an RC thing, not Orthodox.

In point of fact, the EOs have a saying (attributed, I think, to St. John Chrysostom): "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops."

What is difficult to understand about a council being rejected by the people? It's happened plenty of times. Why else do you think we're still not in union with one another? If it were as simple as declaring this or that an ecumenical council that MUST be held to, then we wouldn't see multiple attempts at reunion councils fall flat. The people know their faith, and they wouldn't accept betrayal at Florence from bishops who had been pressured to sign on to something that does not reflect their faith. There is no such thing as "such and such a bishop signed off on it, therefore it's X, Y, Z", the way the Romans have decided applies to their Pope (yet another thing we don't listen to from them). Bishops can be wrong, just like councils that one particular church declares to be preserving the true faith can be doing something else instead.

The whole Mark of Ephesus ideal vs. the oft repeated teaching to be obedient to your priest/bishop even when they are wrong (because they're Christ on earth, and its right to follow them even when they're wrong), another one of Orthodoxy's grand stands of cognitive dissonance. Its no wonder anyone that tries to become Orthodox and isn't content with "Its all a mysterion! Don't think about anything!" ends up schizo.

It's nice to see that you don't actually know anything about Orthodoxy. It makes your hatred of it more forgivable.

Logged

Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully, and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood.

Originally Posted by Cyrillic View PostI disagree. I don't think the Council of Florence was ecumenical. I do not see how that can be seriously disputed.

Quote

Originally Posted by Green_UmbrellaPlease correct me if I am wrong because I am very much a layman.

The Emporer himself and every representative from the east agreed and signed on the dotted line except one, Mark of Ephesus. If that is not ecumenical what is ecumenical? I do not think ecumenical could exist.

Your side rolled over. Unless you have some new information and that is very possible, that is the way I see it.

And from that point a debate opened. I was learning a lot. I do not see anything to be sad about.

Your post on CAF (?) was very definitive ("I don't see how that can be disputed") for someone who hasn't made up their mind.

Look up St. Athanasius. A Catholic as well as Orthodox saint, he was at one point more or less the only bishop who did not subscribe to the semi-Arian creed of Arminium and is seen as a hero for it.

Logged

Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully, and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood.

Originally Posted by Cyrillic View PostI disagree. I don't think the Council of Florence was ecumenical. I do not see how that can be seriously disputed.

Quote

Originally Posted by Green_UmbrellaPlease correct me if I am wrong because I am very much a layman.

The Emporer himself and every representative from the east agreed and signed on the dotted line except one, Mark of Ephesus. If that is not ecumenical what is ecumenical? I do not think ecumenical could exist.

Your side rolled over. Unless you have some new information and that is very possible, that is the way I see it.

And from that point a debate opened. I was learning a lot. I do not see anything to be sad about.

Your post on CAF (?) was very definitive ("I don't see how that can be disputed") for someone who hasn't made up their mind.

Look up St. Athanasius. A Catholic as well as Orthodox saint, he was at one point more or less the only bishop who did not subscribe to the semi-Arian creed of Arminium and is seen as a hero for it.

Yes, and as graceful as our Father generally is, he also seemed rather bitter at times, but then again, I suppose that is what happens when you're exiled five times and folks are trying to kill you

God bless the legacy of our rightful Saint Athanasius, perhaps the only Patriarch with a Moses the Ethiopian attitude and approach!

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

[...]the oft repeated teaching to be obedient to your priest/bishop even when they are wrong (because they're Christ on earth, and its right to follow them even when they're wrong)

If that teaching is so oft-repeated, how come I've never heard it? The bishop is Christ on earth? Nope, we don't have any thoughts of our bishops (any of them) being the "Vicar of Christ". That's an RC thing, not Orthodox.

In point of fact, the EOs have a saying (attributed, I think, to St. John Chrysostom): "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops."

Actually the saying is: "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of Priests and the Bishops are the lamp posts"

Originally Posted by Cyrillic View PostI disagree. I don't think the Council of Florence was ecumenical. I do not see how that can be seriously disputed.

Quote

Originally Posted by Green_UmbrellaPlease correct me if I am wrong because I am very much a layman.

The Emporer himself and every representative from the east agreed and signed on the dotted line except one, Mark of Ephesus. If that is not ecumenical what is ecumenical? I do not think ecumenical could exist.

Your side rolled over. Unless you have some new information and that is very possible, that is the way I see it.

And from that point a debate opened. I was learning a lot. I do not see anything to be sad about.

Your post on CAF (?) was very definitive ("I don't see how that can be disputed") for someone who hasn't made up their mind.

Look up St. Athanasius. A Catholic as well as Orthodox saint, he was at one point more or less the only bishop who did not subscribe to the semi-Arian creed of Arminium and is seen as a hero for it.

Well, If you look at my post they all include words like, ¨I think...¨ ¨I am not sure...¨ ¨Please correct me if I am wrong ..¨ ¨How do you know this and where can I find this information?¨

That is not someone who has their mind made up.

And I still can find no information on where the Greeks demanded the council be ratified by the local synods before it would be accepted by the east. Who says that, where is that written. I have been offered no link to prove that. Is that a historic fact or spin. Show me. Evidence please.

Here is a good example and this is from today after the bans...

Quote

Originally Posted by Cyrillic No, hypocrisy like that would be docrinal development. Orthodoxy doesn't do that.

Besides, my point was that canon 28 was as valid in 451, 1054 and 1215. The Pope's acknowledgement or non-acknowledgement doesn't change a thing about that.

and the response...

Quote

I realize he can't respond, but I want to highlight an error here. In 451 the Pope rejected Canon 28, and the Council said it would have no force without his assent. Later Popes did accept this rearrangement of the order of Sees, yet Cyrillic does not call this the "hypocrisy of doctrinal development" that "Orthodoxy doesn't do".

If the Patriarchate of Rome can change its position on a Canon, why can't the Patriarch of Moscow? And if a Canon that is rejected now can be approved later, then there is no place to say that the rejection of "Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction" now by the Orthodox constitutes an Ecumenical condemnation of the teaching that brands it as heresy.

Unfortunately the Eastern Orthodox position on Councils presented here is unworkable, and contradicts the history of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

Now is Cyrillic correct here or the other person? I do not know. I have no idea. It is all news to me. Some people here act like everyone is born with this knowledge. It is unfortunate they banned everyone there because I was learning a lot. But they pay for the site and he who pays the piper calls the tune.

[...]the oft repeated teaching to be obedient to your priest/bishop even when they are wrong (because they're Christ on earth, and its right to follow them even when they're wrong)

If that teaching is so oft-repeated, how come I've never heard it? The bishop is Christ on earth? Nope, we don't have any thoughts of our bishops (any of them) being the "Vicar of Christ". That's an RC thing, not Orthodox.

In point of fact, the EOs have a saying (attributed, I think, to St. John Chrysostom): "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops."

Actually the saying is: "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of Priests and the Bishops are the lamp posts"

I don't know about the saying, but in his 3rd Homily on Acts St. John says most bishops won't be saved.

I don't know anything? Actually it is amazing you guys apparently don't even study your own religion/history.

Priests are icons of Christ. Kings are, as well. The same role that political envoys played in the secular world Priests served for the Kingdom of God. Just as political envoys were treated as if they themselves were actually the King they represented, priests are likewise for Christ. It may be depreciated in Anglo American Orthodoxy but if you actually pick up any books on Orthodoxy from before 1950's its probably in every one of them.

I don't know anything? Actually it is amazing you guys apparently don't even study your own religion/history.

Priests are icons of Christ. Kings are, as well. The same role that political envoys played in the secular world Priests served for the Kingdom of God. Just as political envoys were treated as if they themselves were actually the King they represented, priests are likewise for Christ. It may be depreciated in Anglo American Orthodoxy but if you actually pick up any books on Orthodoxy from before 1950's its in every one of them.

There's some truth to that. Priests are icons of Christ, and although I don't have any proof for it, I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised to find out that that's also true of kings. That doesn't mean we owe them unconditional obedience and the phrase "Christ on earth" is a bit deceptive in that regard.

Every human being is also an icon of Christ, in a sense. The priests arguably are more so, since they represent Christ liturgically as well as the way we all do. But one doesn't pay the same honor to an icon that one does to God.

I don't know anything? Actually it is amazing you guys apparently don't even study your own religion/history.

Priests are icons of Christ. Kings are, as well. The same role that political envoys played in the secular world Priests served for the Kingdom of God. Just as political envoys were treated as if they themselves were actually the King they represented, priests are likewise for Christ. It may be depreciated in Anglo American Orthodoxy but if you actually pick up any books on Orthodoxy from before 1950's its in every one of them.

Tisk.. Tisk..

It must sure be easy there to throw all those stones from outside looking in, perhaps one day you should come in an actually join us in worship rather then scathing criticism beyond your experience?

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

[...]the oft repeated teaching to be obedient to your priest/bishop even when they are wrong (because they're Christ on earth, and its right to follow them even when they're wrong)

If that teaching is so oft-repeated, how come I've never heard it? The bishop is Christ on earth? Nope, we don't have any thoughts of our bishops (any of them) being the "Vicar of Christ". That's an RC thing, not Orthodox.

Originally Posted by Cyrillic No, hypocrisy like that would be docrinal development. Orthodoxy doesn't do that.

Besides, my point was that canon 28 was as valid in 451, 1054 and 1215. The Pope's acknowledgement or non-acknowledgement doesn't change a thing about that.

and the response...

Quote

I realize he can't respond, but I want to highlight an error here. In 451 the Pope rejected Canon 28, and the Council said it would have no force without his assent. Later Popes did accept this rearrangement of the order of Sees, yet Cyrillic does not call this the "hypocrisy of doctrinal development" that "Orthodoxy doesn't do".

If the Patriarchate of Rome can change its position on a Canon, why can't the Patriarch of Moscow? And if a Canon that is rejected now can be approved later, then there is no place to say that the rejection of "Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction" now by the Orthodox constitutes an Ecumenical condemnation of the teaching that brands it as heresy.

Unfortunately the Eastern Orthodox position on Councils presented here is unworkable, and contradicts the history of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

Now is Cyrillic correct here or the other person? I do not know. I have no idea. It is all news to me. Some people here act like everyone is born with this knowledge. It is unfortunate they banned everyone there because I was learning a lot. But they pay for the site and he who pays the piper calls the tune.

I'm not a very impartial judge here, so I'll leave that one for others.

Originally Posted by Cyrillic No, hypocrisy like that would be docrinal development. Orthodoxy doesn't do that.

Besides, my point was that canon 28 was as valid in 451, 1054 and 1215. The Pope's acknowledgement or non-acknowledgement doesn't change a thing about that.

and the response...

Quote

I realize he can't respond, but I want to highlight an error here. In 451 the Pope rejected Canon 28, and the Council said it would have no force without his assent. Later Popes did accept this rearrangement of the order of Sees, yet Cyrillic does not call this the "hypocrisy of doctrinal development" that "Orthodoxy doesn't do".

If the Patriarchate of Rome can change its position on a Canon, why can't the Patriarch of Moscow? And if a Canon that is rejected now can be approved later, then there is no place to say that the rejection of "Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction" now by the Orthodox constitutes an Ecumenical condemnation of the teaching that brands it as heresy.

Unfortunately the Eastern Orthodox position on Councils presented here is unworkable, and contradicts the history of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

Now is Cyrillic correct here or the other person? I do not know. I have no idea. It is all news to me. Some people here act like everyone is born with this knowledge. It is unfortunate they banned everyone there because I was learning a lot. But they pay for the site and he who pays the piper calls the tune.

I'm not a very impartial judge here, so I'll leave that one for others.

Well, Papal infallibility seems a bit much. ¨..the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error..¨ I think I am not buying that. But is it not true that the Byzantine Emperors acted and claimed the same position over the eastern churches as the Popes today claim over the western churches? Was not the Eastern Empires form of government one of Caesaropapism?

The Emperor was head of the Church and claimed infallibility in the east?

But is it not true that the Byzantine Emperors acted and claimed the same position over the eastern churches as the Popes today claim over the western churches? Was not the Eastern Empires form of government one of Caesaropapism?

Well, not exactly. Some emperors tried to introduce heresy but each time they failed. For example the monothelitism of Constans II or the iconoclasm of Leo III and Constantine V etc. etc.

But is it not true that the Byzantine Emperors acted and claimed the same position over the eastern churches as the Popes today claim over the western churches? Was not the Eastern Empires form of government one of Caesaropapism?

Well, not exactly. Some emperors tried to introduce heresy but each time they failed. For example the monothelitism of Constans II or the iconoclasm of Leo III and Constantine V etc. etc.

The Emperor was head of the Church and claimed infallibility in the east?

Emperors were never the head of the Church (the only head of the Church is Christ) and they never claimed infallibility.

Perhaps a mod should split this thread to keep things on topic.

Well, making a quick search showed up this...

Caesaropapism in the Eastern Church

Caesaropapism's chief example is the authority the Byzantine Emperors had over the Church of Constantinople or Eastern Christian Church from the 330 consecration of Constantinople through the tenth century. The Emperor, whose control was so strong that "Caesaropapism" became interchangeable with "Byzantinism"

Definition: Caesaropapism is the term for a system whereby secular rulers exercised direct control over the church. Where Caesaropapism was established, kings or emperors could appoint clerics and influence church doctrine. The term is most frequently applied to the Byzantine Empire, where emperors were proclaimed to be equal to the apostles in 754, but it has also been used in describing the Russian Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, and England after Henry VIII broke from Catholicism and initiated the Anglican church.

Yes. Equal to the apostles is an honorific only. Sts. Cyril and Methodius were given that title as well. That doesn't mean they were infallible. Of course the emperor had influence, but they couldn't introduce heresy or something.

Yes. Equal to the apostles is an honorific only. Sts. Cyril and Methodius were given that title as well. That doesn't mean they were infallible. Of course the emperor had influence, but they couldn't introduce heresy or something.

But that is not what it says. It says, ¨...exercised direct control over the church.¨ and ¨...the authority the Byzantine Emperors had over the Church.¨

It does not say he held ¨influence¨ over the church. It says he exercised authority and held control over the church. I am thinking the Byzantine Emperor held all the money and all the men with swords and spears. I do not think it takes too much imagination to see the Empoeror making himself the head of the church and infallible in those conditions.

But it didn't. When the emperor tried to introduce heresy the people would rather be martyred than follow heresy. St. Maximus the Confessor, for example. Look him up. And since there is no emperor anymore what are you worrying about?

Yes. Equal to the apostles is an honorific only. Sts. Cyril and Methodius were given that title as well. That doesn't mean they were infallible. Of course the emperor had influence, but they couldn't introduce heresy or something.

Some more searching...

¨The same writer, speaking of the ecclesiastical policy of Manuel Comnenus, gave the general belief of the Byzantine emperors, who consider themselves the infallible judges of matters of God and man. This opinion was supported in the second half of the twelfth century by the clergy. A celebrated Greek canonist...¨